The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Tempted to ask "What's the point?"

I've been working on a layout for my site for the past couple of weeks. Spending a lot of time on typography, trying to get everything just right. I don't want to use tables, I want the site to work on every browser so I want to use XHTML Strict for document structure and CSS2 for presentation.

Opera doesn't understand what {text-indent : 1.5em;} should actually look like and IE 6 can't figure out percentage widths of a <div> whos parent also has a percentage width.

I agree with what you are saying regarding the XHTML specification, tables do have a structural role. The W3C has been very specific about not using any presentational markup (we are talking XHTML Strict here rather than the transitional variety), and as it is only my own site, I'm more than happy to spend time getting my layouts done in CSS. I want to be fully up and running when the browser makers finally get their acts together.

As for browser compatibility, the site will work in anything from IE 6 right down to Avant Go because of the separation of style from content. Though it certainly won't look the same it will function properly. I just find it ironic coming on the back of the Microsoft MSN fiasco where they were bleating on about locking out browsers that don't support the latest standards (when in fact their code was uterly non-standard) and yet their latest browser can't handle these very same latest standards.

Ironic also the one of the main men (possibly even the main man) behind CSS is very high up in Opera, yet they too have their own CSS glitches.

Thanks for your offer of that PHP browser sniffer, though just after I posted I wrote one myself

Originally posted by brokenvoice I agree with what you are saying regarding the XHTML specification, tables do have a structural role. The W3C has been very specific about not using any presentational markup (we are talking XHTML Strict here rather than the transitional variety), and as it is only my own site, I'm more than happy to spend time getting my layouts done in CSS. I want to be fully up and running when the browser makers finally get their acts together.

The utopia of inet development. When this happens programming for the web will actually be more like creating applications.

The biggest thing standing in the way of further development into true standards is
a) Developers refusing to care about standards
b) Client and surfers not knowing and caring about them

Until those two things get fixed I don't believe we will see a true developers standard for a long time. Unless we forget about the clients with non-standard browsers altogether.

I feel the same way as you do. I'd like to make my site the more standards compliant possible. In the making I put myself under so much pressure that I can't get anything done. I am always trying to push more and the result is that I keep going backwards.

I think we have to accept the fact that it can't be perfect just yet. But that doesn't mean we can't make it as perfect as possible in today's reality.

I think some ways of coding, even though not totally compliant still have to be used. Tables for example, still can be used even though it would be much greater in terms of accomplishment to create your whole site without any.

It's a good thing to try to be innovative, but it becomes a helluva nightmare when the world around you isn't ready for your ideas.

Originally posted by cybercodeur I agree with Maelstrom yet once again. Standards are far from being implemented even though the browsers are now capable of supporting most of them in a nice way.

That is happening quite a bit. ...

BTW congrats on 200

[quote]
I think some ways of coding, even though not totally compliant still have to be used. Tables for example, still can be used even though it would be much greater in terms of accomplishment to create your whole site without any
[/code]

Its ironic but I started out using layers. The book I had taught layers as the primary way of positioning. However after much experimenting and kicking of computer thanx to different browsers I find I use tables almost exclusively and use layers more like large containers

I work pretty much the same way Maelstrom. Layers are taking up more place every day in my design habits but just not as much as I'd wish it did. We have to be patient. It's not easy to be ahead of his time...

I haven't forgotten you Maelstrom. I should be able to send you something over the weekend. I've just been busy more than expected. Spending way too much time in here as taken much of my time.

Be careful people. This place is addictive !

I hope you can bear with me. I think it'll be worth it.

And thank you. I did hit 200 last night. Pretty good considering I only subscribed some three weeks ago.

[i]I haven't forgotten you Maelstrom. I should be able to send you something over the weekend. I've just been busy more than expected. Spending way too much time in here as taken much of my time.

Be careful people. This place is addictive !

I hope you can bear with me. I think it'll be worth it.

[/B]

Well after seeing your website as well as seeing you arouund the forums I am sure it will be great. I just hope I can do it justice and create a site around the logo. And patience is my middle name I am currently in an interview process for an IT job building intranets so I am a little preoccupied.

First let me say that you have a very nice site. I've already bookmarked it for later reference.

Using CSS for layout is a tough road to travel on.

For the time being I've just said **** it and let the different browsers view the page a little differently instead of messing around with detection scripts and multiple style sheets. I have a page right now that just won't work quite right in IE. My solution? Let IE users suffer.

Unfornatuly clients don't want to hear things like that and I'm always "forced" to work with tables.

I personaly can't wait until content, code, and presentation are 100% separated from each other.

I posted a thread a while back on posting our table-less creations on one thread to be css positioning resource. Why don't we restart that idea again?

Using the margins like you said works differently in IE6 than in Moz 0.9.7 and Opera 6, you have to set text-align : center in the body selector. The main container's width is actually set by margins on the body selector.

As for using pixels to describe the text indents, typographically, an indent should be between 1 and 2 ems. If I use pixels, the text indent will stay the same even if the vistor increases the font size, which would ruin the effect of the indent.

To be honest, I didn't post looking for a solution, it was more out of frustration. The fact that it broke if I used the XHTML Strict DOCTYPE and worked ok if I used the HTML Strict DOCTYPE annoys me. The fact that Opera got the indent wrong annoys me (though much less so). I was just looking to start a discussion about the implications rather than find a cure (which in effect I already have by switching to HTML Strict).

Good luck Maelstrom with your job interview. If your qualifications are only half as good as the quality of the messages you post in here, I'm sure you'll get it hand up!

I think I'll be able to send you something later on today. I've used Poser 4 and Illustrator to get a body in Vector shape. Then I'll turn to good old Photoshop for a few magic tricks.

Bear with me my friend !

As for designing a site using mostly (or only) layers instead of tables, that's exactly what I plan on doing. I am still in the process of perfectionning my mock up, but I put myself under enormous pressure to build it as WebStandards compliant as humanly possible (according to my current knowledge that is).

I'm also trying to finish my article on Web Standards, so I am really in the process of rethinking the way I work... those aren't easy times, but they sure as hell are passionate times...

To be honest, I didn't post looking for a solution, it was more out of frustration. The fact that it broke if I used the XHTML Strict DOCTYPE and worked ok if I used the HTML Strict DOCTYPE annoys me. The fact that Opera got the indent wrong annoys me (though much less so). I was just looking to start a discussion about the implications rather than find a cure (which in effect I already have by switching to HTML Strict). [/B]

The problem is that standards are a hot topic in the last bit. Some developers want to use them because they would bring the whole 'application' development one huge step forward. However there are two groups against this move. The first being developers who don't care and like the way their pages show up and 'what works works' theory.

The second group holding us back seperate even further into people who either refuse to upgrade browsers OR people who do't have the computers to upgrade.

So in short any topic started on standards will cause some sort of discussion. Congratulations on a succesfu thread

The second group holding us back seperate even further into people who either refuse to upgrade browsers OR people who do't have the computers to upgrade.

And dont forget the group of people that refuse to adapt to the notion that the WWW is not print design, and that they cannot hold absolute control over what the end user see's. And the web suffers as a result of their attempts to bend the media to their wishes, Instead of designing FOR the web.

THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW ARE OLD AND MAY BE INACCURATE.
THIS INSTALL METHOD IS NOT RECOMMENDED, IT MAY RUN
OVER YOUR DOG. <-- MediaWiki installation guide

Hi again. I don't know if you got my PM Maelstrom but in any case, here's the logo. Go get your message for more details. Let's just say I am not as happy as I expected because it is impossible to transfer a 32000 polygon shape from Poser to illustrator. Adobe Illustrator just cannot handle it.

So it had to go from Poser to photoshop directly. Therefore I could not make it a vector shpae as I had expected.

Still it's not so bad. I hope you'll like it !!!

The thinkg is since it's not vector shape you won't be able to play with your logo as much as I wanted you to. Oh well.